He Posted a Sedition Law. It May Haunt Hegseth.
Trump attacked six veteran lawmakers for reminding troops they can refuse illegal orders. Then came the September 2 boat strike.
📌 NOTE FOR NEW READERS: The 50501 Movement organizes peaceful action across all 50 states to defend democracy. We are over 80,000 subscribers strong and growing. If this resonates, hit subscribe.
TL;DR:
Donald Trump and his administration have invoked 18 U.S.C. § 2387, a federal sedition law, in attacks on six Democratic lawmakers with military or intelligence backgrounds who reminded military service members they can refuse illegal orders. The law makes it a crime to intentionally undermine military loyalty and discipline. Legal experts widely agree: reminding troops to follow the law reinforces discipline, it doesn’t undermine it.
But on September 2, 2025, according to major news reports, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth allegedly gave a verbal order to “kill everybody” on a suspected drug boat in the Caribbean. After the first missile strike, two survivors clung to burning wreckage. Admiral Frank Bradley reportedly ordered a second strike that killed them. Military law experts say attacking shipwrecked survivors is strictly prohibited and constitutes an unlawful order, exactly what those six lawmakers warned about. Hegseth denies giving a “kill everybody” order, and both Republican and Democratic congressional committees have announced investigations.
The sedition law Trump and his allies have cited doesn’t apply to the lawmakers. Some legal commentators argue it might apply more to the people threatening them.
Trump’s Truth Social post attacking six Democratic lawmakers was later framed by his administration and allies around 18 U.S.C. § 2387. Instead of weakening them, it highlighted the exact legal framework that legal experts say makes Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s reported boat strike order potentially criminal.
Do you believe Pete Hegseth gave a verbal order to “kill everybody”?
What do you think of his denial? And how do you feel about this post from him on X?
The Video That Started This
Six Democratic lawmakers with military or intelligence backgrounds- Senators Mark Kelly and Elissa Slotkin, plus Representatives Jason Crow, Chris Deluzio, Maggie Goodlander, and Chrissy Houlahan made a 90-second video. Their message: “Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders.”
That’s the “crime.”
This isn’t controversial military law, it’s been doctrine since Nuremberg. Military members are required to refuse manifestly unlawful orders. George Washington University law professor Laura Dickinson confirmed the lawmakers “appeared to be correct on the law.”
Trump called them traitors. Posted that they committed “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” Then he and his administration cited 18 U.S.C. § 2387, a rarely-used statute making it a crime to “advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes or attempts to cause” insubordination in the military with “intent to interfere with...the loyalty, morale, or discipline” of armed forces.
“Members of the military must obey lawful orders, but not unlawful ones, and when an order is ‘manifestly unlawful,’ they have a duty to disobey it.”
Attribution: George Washington University law professor Laura Dickinson
Here’s the problem with using that law against lawmakers who told troops to follow the law: it requires intentionally undermining military discipline. Legal experts widely agree reminding service members of their legal duty to refuse unlawful orders isn’t sedition. It’s the opposite.
But if we’re talking about undermining good order and discipline in the military...
September 2, 2025
A U.S. surveillance aircraft tracked a boat in the Caribbean carrying 11 people suspected of drug trafficking. According to The Washington Post and confirmed by the White House, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth allegedly gave a verbal directive: kill everybody.
The White House has since confirmed that Admiral Frank Bradley ordered a second strike and is publicly defending the operation as lawful.
The first missile strike disabled the vessel. For minutes, commanders watched on a live drone feed. Two survivors clung to the burning wreckage.
Admiral Frank M. “Mitch” Bradley, then-head of Joint Special Operations Command, was on the secure call. According to two people with direct knowledge, Bradley told others on the call the survivors were still “legitimate targets” because they could theoretically call other traffickers.
He reportedly ordered a second strike “to fulfill Hegseth’s directive that everyone must be killed.”
The two men were blown apart in the water.
This is exactly the scenario those six lawmakers warned about.
What are your thoughts on military members facing this kind of order?
Accountability, Not Blind Obedience
The Pentagon’s own Law of War Manual states that people who are “wounded, sick, or shipwrecked” must be “respected and protected in all circumstances.” Making them “the object of attack” is strictly prohibited.
Military law experts writing in Just Security wrote that, if the facts are as reported, “there is little question that the order by Secretary Hegseth and the ensuing order by Admiral Bradley to conduct the second strike were unlawful, because the killing of the two survivors was a serious violation of international human rights law.”
They continued: “It is equally clear that...those carrying out that order cannot rely on a superior orders defense if prosecuted for those actions due to the egregious illegality of the order.”
Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told CNN he doesn’t “think there’s any question” the second strike would be a war crime if the reporting is accurate.
Both Republican and Democratic congressional committees have announced investigations.
Portugal, 1974
In 1974, Portugal was still under a right-wing dictatorship that had been in power for more than 40 years and was fighting expensive colonial wars in Africa. Many younger officers were exhausted and angry about being sent to keep this system going. You can read a good overview of this period in this explainer on the Carnation Revolution.
A group of mid-ranking officers formed the Armed Forces Movement (MFA). Their plan was to remove the dictatorship, end the colonial wars, and move the country toward democracy.
On April 25, 1974, they launched a coordinated operation:
Troops and tanks moved into Lisbon and took over key buildings, radio stations, and other strategic points.
Historians describe this as an almost bloodless coup that brought down more than 40 years of dictatorship in a single day.
This BBC history piece walks through what happened and why.
As civilians came into the streets to support the soldiers, flower sellers handed out red carnations. People began putting the flowers into the muzzles of soldiers’ rifles and on their uniforms.
That’s why it became known as the Carnation Revolution, a military revolt where the main symbol was a flower instead of a weapon. You can see this story repeated in multiple accounts from people who were there.
When forces loyal to the old regime were told to crack down, most soldiers did not fire on the crowd.
The only people killed that day in Lisbon were shot by the regime’s secret police, not by the officers leading the uprising or the soldiers in the streets.
Several detailed histories describe April 25 as an “almost bloodless” revolution, at least four civilians were killed by the dictatorship’s secret police, and later research suggests the true death toll may be higher. You can see that described here and here: Guardian archive and “Five Dead Men” overview.
Those officers weren’t traitors to their country. They were loyal to their oath and to basic law. They refused to treat civilians as targets just because a political leader told them to.
U.S. service members take a similar kind of oath to the Constitution, not to a president or any one leader. The whole point is that legality and basic rules of war come first.
What historical examples of military officers refusing illegal orders should we remember? Drop your knowledge below.
The Law Trump Cited
18 U.S.C. § 2387 makes it a crime to intentionally undermine military loyalty and discipline. It carries up to 10 years in prison.
The lawmakers told troops to uphold military law. That’s reinforcing discipline, not undermining it.
But ordering the execution of shipwrecked survivors who pose no threat? Legal experts say that violates both U.S. military law and international humanitarian law. It’s precisely the kind of manifestly unlawful order those six lawmakers warned about.
Legal experts agree that Section 2387 doesn’t apply to the Democrats who made that video. Some legal commentators argue it might apply more to the people threatening them for it.
What You Can Do
Call your senators (202-224-3121): “I’m calling about the September 2 boat strike. Congress needs to investigate without intimidation from the administration.”
Support the six lawmakers: Mark Kelly (AZ), Elissa Slotkin (MI), Chrissy Houlahan (PA), Chris Deluzio (PA), Jason Crow (CO), Maggie Goodlander (NH). If one represents you, call and thank them.
Share this widely.
The more that people understand what Section 2387 actually says and what those lawmakers actually did, the harder it is to weaponize the law against them.
Have you called your senators yet? Drop a comment when you do, it motivates others to take action too. Why do you support the six lawmakers?
One of the smallest acts of resistance is understanding what the law says.
Tap the ❤️ at the top or bottom, it helps others discover this post.
SOURCES & FURTHER READING:
Blue | The 50501 Movement | 80,000+ Subscribers Strong | Fiftyfifty.one
No surprise if Hegseth gave the order to “kill everyone.”
One of the most important outcomes of this is that it demonstrates to servicemembers right down “the kill chain,” don’t obey an illegal order! Reiterating their oath and responsibilities.
he said it. he is drunk on his power. he is completely unqualified to do this job. he is an unstable man